Date: 09 Oct 2012
Housing vouchers as a means of poverty deconcentration and race desegregation: Patterns and factors of voucher recipients’ spatial concentration in Cleveland
- Miseon Park
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Housing Choice Voucher Program is the single largest housing subsidy program in the USA with the goal of poverty deconcentration and race desegregation. This study aims to identify the presence and locations of voucher holders’ spatial concentration, and to investigate the factors associated with the location outcomes of voucher recipients in Cleveland from 2005 to 2009. Hotspot analysis indicated that voucher holders have clustered together and their concentrations have changed during the five years. Over time, concentration patterns spread out from the central city to suburbs. Spatial concentrations were significantly different by race. Regression analysis identified several factors associated with voucher recipients’ concentration, including race, availability of affordable housing, poverty rates, vacancy rates, and accessibility to public transportation. The spatial error model estimation and Geographically Weighted Regression account for spatial autocorrelation and spatial heterogeneity. Results from the study presented the limited potential of the voucher program since voucher holders are still clustered in specific neighborhoods, even though they tend to move in less poor neighborhoods over time.
Abramson, A., Tobin, M., & VanderGoot, M. (1995). The changing geography of metropolitan opportunity: The segregation of the poor in US Metropolitan areas, 1970–1990. Housing Policy Debate, 6(1), 45–72.CrossRef
Anselin, L. (2005a). Spatial statistical modeling in a GIS environment. In D. Maguire, M. Batty, & M. F. Goodchild (Eds.), GIS, spatial analysis, and modeling (pp. 93–111). Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.
Anselin, L. (2005b). Exploring spatial data with Geoda: A workbook. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science.
Basolo, V., & Nguyen, M. (2005). Does mobility matter? The neighborhood conditions of housing voucher holders by race and ethnicity. Housing Policy Debate, 16(3/4), 297–324.CrossRef
Bourne, L. (1981). Geography of housing. New York, NY: Wiley.
Briggs, X., Popkin, S., & Goering, J. (2010). Moving to opportunity: The story of an American experiment to fight ghetto poverty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Charlton, M., & Fotheringham, S. (2009). Geographically weighted regression: White paper. National Centre for Geocomputation, National University of Ireland Maynooth. Maynooth: Ireland.
Climaco, C., Finkel, M., Nolden, S., & Vandawalker, M. (2006). Updating the low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) database projects placed in service through 2003. Washington, DC: Abt Associates for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Cunningham, M., Sylvester, D., & Turner, M. (1999). Section 8 families in the Washington region: Neighborhood choices and constraints. Washington, DC: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
DeFilippis, J., & Wyly, E. (2008). Running to stand still: Through the looking glass with federally subsidized housing in New York City. Urban Affairs Review, 43(6), 777–816.CrossRef
Deng, L. (2007). Comparing the effects of housing vouchers and low-income housing tax credits on neighborhood integration and school quality. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27, 20–35.CrossRef
Devine, D., Gray, R., Rubin, L., & Taghavi, L. (2003). Housing choice voucher location patterns: Implications for participants and neighborhood welfare. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research, US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Finkel, M., & Buron, L. (2001). Study on Section 8 voucher success rate, Vol. 1. Quantitative study of success rates in metropolitan areas. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc.
Fotheringham, A. S., Brunsdon, C., & Charlton, M. (2002). Geographically weighted regression: The analysis of spatially varying relationships. Chichester: Wiley.
Galster, G., Smith, R., Santiago, A., & Petit, K. (2003). Why not in my backyard? Neighborhood impacts of deconcentrating assisted housing. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
Goering, J., & Feins, J. (2003). Choosing a better life: Evaluating the moving to opportunity social experiment. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Gubits, D., Khadduri, J., & Turnham, J. (2009). Housing patterns of low income families with children: Further analysis of data from the study of the effects of housing vouchers on welfare families. Cambridge: Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University.
Guhathakurta, S., & Mushkatel, A. (2000). Does locational choice matter? A comparison of different subsidized housing programs in Phoenix, Arizona. Urban Affairs Review, 35(4), 520–540.CrossRef
Hartung, M., & Henig, J. (1997). Housing vouchers and certificates as a vehicle for deconcentrating the poor: Evidence from the Washington DC metropolitan area. Urban Affairs Review, 32(3), 403–419.CrossRef
Husock, H. (2003). American’s trillion-dollar housing mistake: The failure of American housing policy. London: Routledge.
Jacquez, G. (2008). Spatial cluster analysis. In J. Wilson, & A. Fotheringham (Eds.), The handbook of geographic information science (pp. 395–416). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. (2010). The state of the nation’s housing 2009. Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.
Keating, D. (1994). The suburban racial dilemma: Housing and neighborhoods. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Kingsley, G., Johnson, J., & Petit, K. (2003). Patterns of Section 8 relocation in the Hope VI program. Journal of Urban Affairs, 25(4), 427–447.CrossRef
Ladd, H. F., & Ludwig, J. (1997). Federal housing assistance, residential relocation, and educational opportunities: Evidence from Baltimore. American Economic Review, 87(2), 272–277.
Logan, J., Stults, B., & Farley, R. (2004). Segregation of minorities in the metropolis: Two decades of change. Demography, 41(1), 1–22.CrossRef
Massey, D., & Denton, N. (1989). Hypersegregation in US Metropolitan areas: Black and Hispanic segregation along five dimensions. Demography, 26, 378–379.CrossRef
McClure, K. (2008). Deconcentrating poverty with housing programs. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(1), 90–99.CrossRef
Mills, G., Gubits, D., Orr, L., Long, D., Feins, J., Kaul, B., & Wood, M. (2006). Effects of housing vouchers on welfare families: Final report. Prepared for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc.
Newman, S., & Schnare, A. (1997). “And a suitable living environment”: The failure of housing programs to deliver neighborhood quality. Housing Policy Debate, 8(4), 703–741.CrossRef
Oakley, D., & Burchfield, K. (2009). Out of the projects, still in the hood: The spatial constraints on public-housing residents’ relocation in Chicago. Journal of Urban Affairs, 31(5), 589–614.CrossRef
Patterson, R., Wood, M., Lam, K., Patrabansh, S., Mills, G., Sullivan, S., Amare, H., & Zandniapour, L. (2004). Evaluation of the welfare to work voucher program: Report to congress. Report prepared to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development by Abt Associates, Inc., and the QED group, LLC. Washington, DC: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.
Pendall, R. (2000). Why voucher and certificate users live in distressed neighborhoods. Housing Policy Debate, 11(4), 881–910.CrossRef
Perry, C. (1929). Planning a neighborhood unit. American City, 41, 124–127.
Popkin, S., & Cunningham, K. (2000). Searching for rental housing with section 8 in the Chicago region. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Teater, B. (2008). Residential mobility of Section 8 housing choice voucher program recipients: Assessing changes in poverty and racial composition in neighborhoods. Journal of Poverty, 12(3), 351–371.CrossRef
Turner, M. A., Popkin, S., & Cunningham, M. (2000). Section 8 mobility and neighborhood health: Emerging issues and policy challenges. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Turner, M. A., & Wilson, C. (1998). Affirmatively furthering fair housing: Neighborhood outcomes for tenant-based assistance in six metropolitan areas. Urban Institute Working Paper. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
US Census Bureau. (2009). American FactFinder, American Community Survey 2006–2008 3-Year Estimates.
US Census Bureau. (2002). Racial and ethnic residential segregation in the United States: 1980–2000. Census 2000 special reports. Washington, DC: US, Department of Commerce. Economic and Statistics Administration. US Census Bureau.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (1997). U.S. Housing Market Conditions, 4th Quarter 1996.
Utt, R. (1996). Time for a bipartisan reform of public housing, Backgrounder, no. 1081, Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.
Varady, D., & Walker, C. (2003). Housing vouchers and residential mobility. Journal of Planning literature, 18(1), 17–30.CrossRef
Varady, D., & Walker, C. (2007). Neighborhood choices: Section 8 housing vouchers and residential mobility. New Brunswick, NJ: CURP Press.
Varady, D., Walker, C., & Wang, X. (2001). Voucher recipient achievement of improved housing conditions in the US: Do moving distance and relocation services matter? Urban Studies, 38(8), 1273–1304.CrossRef
Wang, X., & Varady, D. (2005). Using Hot-spot analysis to study the clustering of Section 8 housing voucher families. Housing Studies, 20(1), 29–48.CrossRef
Wang, X., Varady, D., & Wang, Y. (2008). Measuring the deconcentration of housing choice voucher program recipients in eight US metropolitan areas using hot spot analysis. Cityscape, 19(1), 65–90.
Williamson, A., Smith, M., & Strambi-Kramer, M. (2009). Housing choice vouchers, the low-income housing tax credit, and the federal poverty deconcentration goal. Urban Affairs Review, 45(1), 119–132.CrossRef
Wyly, E., & DeFilippis, J. (2010). Mapping public housing: The case of New York City. City & Community, 9(1), 61–86.CrossRef
- Housing vouchers as a means of poverty deconcentration and race desegregation: Patterns and factors of voucher recipients’ spatial concentration in Cleveland
Journal of Housing and the Built Environment
Volume 28, Issue 3 , pp 451-468
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Housing Choice Voucher Program
- Spatial concentration
- Miseon Park (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements, 254 Simindaero, Gwanyang-dong, Dongan-gu, Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea